State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarovar Hotels & Resorts vs Ananth S/O Ramanathan, on 23 November, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2012 First Appeal No.35/2012 1. Sarovar Hotels & Resorts an Establishment (rep. by Authorised Signatory) with Head Office at NO.42, Mittal Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 and carrying on Business as Hotels & Resorts in various Names & Places including (as Sarovar Premiere 2nd OP) at Pondicherry. 2. Hotel Promenade an Establishment rep by its Authorised Signatory and carrying on Business including as Sarovar Premiere at No.23, Goubert Avenue, Pondicherry 605 001. . Appellants/Opposite Parties Vs. Ananth S/O Ramanathan, In service as India-Representative of JAL Spain with Office at No.7, Ambalathadayar Madam street, Pondicherry 605 001. . Respondent/Complainant (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2008, dated 30.04.2012) Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2008 Ananth S/O Ramanathan, In service as India-Representative of JAL Spain with Office at No.7, Ambalathadayar Madam street, Pondicherry 605 001. Complainant v. 1. Sarovar Hotels & Resorts an Establishment (rep. by Authorised Signatory) with Head Office at NO.42, Mittal Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 and carrying on Business as Hotels & Resorts in various Names & Places including (as Sarovar Premiere 2nd OP) at Pondicherry. 2. Hotel Promenade an Establishment rep by its Authorised Signatory and carrying on Business including as Sarovar Premiere at No.23, Goubert Avenue, Pondicherry 605 001. Opposite Parties BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN PRESIDENT Tmt. K.K.RITHA, MEMBER
Thiru K.ELUMALAI, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl.
P. Krishnamurthy & Rajavelu, Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru M. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Advocates O R D E R (By Justice Thiru K. Raviraja Pandian, President) This appeal is filed against the order dated 30.04.2012 made in Consumer Complaint No.19/2008 by the District Forum. In the said complaint the respondent herein sought for the following reliefs:
a) that opposite parties 1 & 2 are in wrongs of Negligence by Unilateral Cancellation of confirmed bookings for Rooms and Refusal for Occupancy to Guests of complainant;
b) the opposite parties Hotels shall not repeat or continue such unfair trade practice to helpless consumers;
b) Jointly & severally liable to pay at least Rs.50,000/- as compensation for Negligence & Deficiencies of Service to complainant;
d) Jointly & severally liable to pay at least Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental sufferings & Agony and Loss of future prospects as are caused to complainant and his life;
e) to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. The respondent is working as Appraise Attachiare in the French Consolate General, Pondicherry. He is also associated with Volantariate (NGO) in Pondicherry for eradication of Leprosy. The respondent also visited Spain and was introduced to Jovenes Amigos de los Leprosos JAL as an institution in long & good services to patients of Leprosy all over the world. Later he becomes Indian representative of JAL in Spain.
The JAL is funding, construction of building and other activities in Tamil Nadu as well as Pondicherry for eradication of leprosy. In such course of activities the institution has convened conference in association with the NGOs and Govt. of Pondicherry.
The respondent was asked to be the convener. In the course of convening conference, in order to accommodate the delegates from Spain, the respondent booked seven rooms, one single and six double occupancy in the Appellant hotel. The Appellant despite confirmed the booking of rooms in its hotel, unilaterally cancelled it for whimsical reason and thus rendered the respondent to under go mental agony and hardship besides physical sufferings in getting the alternate accommodation to the delegates. The intense feelings of failure to get contracted services for respected guests of complainant coupled with continuing non-getting of any polite response caused serious and severe sufferings and physical and mental agony & stress to complainant. The said suffering could not be quantified in terms of money, however the respondent quantified to Rs.50,000/- and filed the complaint seeking other relief also.
3. The said complaint was refuted by the Appellant that it is true that the respondent has booked rooms as aforesaid however the same was cancelled by the Appellant and intimated to the respondent by e-mail on 15.01.2008. The cancellation was caused because the respondent did not reconfirm and pay advance for the booking as per the policy of the hotel. When the cancellation was duly intimated for valid reason, the respondent cannot complaint of Unfair trade practice and claim compensation from the Appellant.
The District Forum on merits found that the Appellant has in fact practiced and Unfair trade practice in canceling the confirmed room booking however awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that it is true that the respondent booked rooms from 20th to 28th January, 2008 on 26.10.2007.
However the rooms booked infavour of the respondent were cancelled on 15.01.2008 on due intimation to the respondent.
The reason for cancellation was, the respondent failed to get the rooms booked reconfirm by paying advance amount.
When the respondent approached the Appellant on 16.01.2008 for re-booking it is the Appellant who helped for booking rooms at Ginger Hotel. The petitioner has not sustained any monetary loss, therefore the claim of compensation is unsustainable in law. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the District Forum. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent argued for sustaining the order of the District Forum.
4. Heard the counsel and perused the matter on record. The one and only argument on behalf of the Appellant is that the rooms booked by the respondent were cancelled because of the failure of the respondent in getting it reconfirmed by paying advance. We are not able to subscribe our view to the said contention, in view of categorical admission of the Appellant about the confirmation of the booking of rooms under Ex C6. Under Ex C6 the e-mail the Appellant has categorically admitted that they confirmed one single and six double occupancy Deluxe rooms at the rate of Rs.3750/- and 4000/- respectively. In respect of the payment it is stated in the e-mail that the payment was direct, which would mean the payment would be made by the occupier to the Appellant. The e-mail also clearly stated that the rooms were booked by the respondent. Though it was contended that as per the policy of the hotel advance has been paid or Pan No. of the occupier to be produced. The Learned counsel was not able to produce any material to sustain the same. Of course the cancellation was communicated to the respondent on 15.01.2008 by e-mail. The communication which is unilaterally in nature cannot be taken advantage of the Appellant to sustain the unfair trade practice. The admission made by the Appellant in Ex C6 clearly exhibited callousness with which the Appellant cancelled the confirmed rooms and thereby caused mental and physical hardships to the Respondent. The compensation awarded by the District Forum for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service cannot be regarded as high while comparing the difficulties of mental agony and sufferings caused to the respondent in getting alternate accommodation in the given set of circumstances. The cost awarded is also reasonable. We find no merit in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs.
5. In the result the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2012 (Justice K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN) PRESIDENT (K.K.RITHA) MEMBER (K.ELUMALAI) MEMBER